Well, once again, Liberals have used the Court System to override the overwhelming will of the people and force an unwilling society to put it’s stamp of approval on a damaging redefinition of Marriage. The Iowa Supreme Court, using whatever twisted legal argument it found, has decided that there is no longer value to traditional values, and that Gay Marriage should be legal.

There are those who welcome this – or who say that it isn’t a big deal. Most Americans will never have any desire to conduct any kind of sexual relationship with a member of the same sex, so why spend so much time on this issue? They couldn’t be more wrong.

The consequences of Gay Marriage which, thanks to judicial activism and liberal hatred of traditional values, has now spread beyond the lost causes of the Northeastern states and into America’s heartland go far beyond the bedrooms of the nation’s 2%-4% homosexual population. This is now the view of the Iowa State Government:

Marriage is no longer based on the family or children. It is now based on the pleasure of adults and on money. A traditional union between a man and a woman, which will most likely create children and pass on family values to the next generation now has no more value to society than two men who decide to get “married” so they can pay lower taxes.

If that we’re bad enough, rulings such as this one can now be used to force religious charities to adopt out children to Gay parents – depriving them of either a mother or a father. Rulings like this one can now be used to attempt to force churches to marry Gay couples, in clear violation of their religious principles. Rulings like this one now pave the way for all other mutated forms of marriages – polygamy, sibling marriage, group marriage, marriage to animals, even marriage to machines or robots and other objects. Rulings like this one can now be used to further push a radical, social libertarian agenda that will destroy American values and make us more like the dying continent across the Atlantic. Rulings like this one can now be used to send the message to children that religion is nothing but bigotry and that traditional families are meaningless.

Rather than work to combat legitimate bigotry that might exist toward homosexuals, liberals like Rep. Frank throw around the term “homophobe” to apply to anyone with moral objections to Gay Marraige. There may very well be a legitimate middle ground – one that protects the legal rights of ALL members of society who can’t or don’t wish to get married, but by attempting to force their way in to our sacred institutions, liberals are hurting both the country and themselves.

Marriage carries a special significance well beyond tax and inheritance laws: it is the foundation of healthy families, the root of the next generation, and a tool by which society can promote and defend traditional behavior essential to our national survival and prosperity.

Its time for the Iowa Legislature to do what is right and give the PEOPLE the right to make the laws.

Absolutely not. The Iowa Supreme Court is opening up marriage to all families, not just those based on a mixed-sex couple, and that’s hardly saying that marriage isn’t based on family any more; the Iowa Supreme Court ruling says that that now all children can have married parents, not just the children of mixed-sex couples, and that’s hardly saying that marriage isn’t about children any more.

The notion that marriage is about “the pleasure of adults” has been part of the concept of marriage for a couple of hundred years – to decry it now, to argue that marriage ought to be completely pleasureless for the couple who marry, may be central to your ideal of marriage, but it’s hardly something that most people would agree to.

A traditional union between a man and a woman, which will most likely create children and pass on family values to the next generation now has no more value to society than two men who decide to get “married” so they can pay lower taxes.

I have no notion what you mean by a “traditional union”, but your idea that when two men marry it’s all about “adult pleasure” doesn’t really fit with your idea that two men will only marry so they can get lower taxes….

Great, so Gays can get married – which means more gays are going to end up with kids – which means more kids are going to be deprived of either a mother or a father. Well that is just perfect for our society, isn’t it? We can debate Gay adoption – and I’m all up for that. But can we at least agree that Gay couples shouldn’t be bringing new children in the world, only to deprive them of a mother or a father?
—-
“to decry it now, to argue that marriage ought to be completely pleasureless for the couple who marry”

….and to take what I said completely out of context is dishonest. Did I say that marriage should be completely pleasureless? Nope. I said that having families – which most liberals seem to forget is essential to our nation’s survival – should remain one of the primary functions and reasons of and for marriage. Come back the day two men can have a kid together, and you might have an argument.

But you tell me, if Gays don’t want to get married because of tax reasons, then why do they want to get married? Honestly, that stumps me.

But can we at least agree that Gay couples shouldn’t be bringing new children in the world, only to deprive them of a mother or a father?

As the Iowan Supreme Court noted, there is no evidence that it makes any difference to a child whether the child is parented by two women, or two men, or a man and a woman. In order to show that lesbians should not be allowed to bear children, or that gay men should not be allowed to be sperm donors, you would need to show some active reason for this infringement on a basic human right. Indeed, given that it is impossible to stop lesbians and gay men from having children without some fairly major infringements on human rights that ought to upset anyone with the slightest claim to decency, the question before you is not “How can I stop lesbians and gay men from having children”; it’s “How do I want the children who have same-sex couples as parents to be treated?”

(The answer, from the anti-marriage advocates, is invariably to argue that the children of same-sex couples must not be allowed to have married parents: demonstrating either their lack of regard for marriage as a foundation for stable families and a support for children, or their willingness to discriminate against children because of bigotry against the children’s parents. Am I right?)

I said that having families – which most liberals seem to forget is essential to our nation’s survival – should remain one of the primary functions and reasons of and for marriage.

Good. So, are you in favor of having marriage open to all families, or not? If not, what’s your justification for discriminating against children because their parents are a same-sex couple?

Gays should NOT have children – do you honestly believe that two women can raise a young boy the same as a mother and a father? Of course not – he might not become a serial killer, and he might not be able to respond to a survey question “do you regret not having a father?” (you can’t miss what you’ve never had – but there is inevitably going to be something missing. There is a reason men and women are so different from each other – and a reason it takes one of each to create a baby.

“Good. So, are you in favor of having marriage open to all families, or not?”

I’m not, because I don’t even believe Gays should have kids – and besides, any kids that they do have are not going to be produced within the marriage. – they will require either a sperm donor, a surrogate mother, or another couple entirely to allow for adoption.

—-

“you would need to show some active reason for this infringement on a basic human right.”

…how about the fact that you are bringing a kid into the world who will completely lack any masculine or feminine influence? How about the fact that you are bringing into this world a kid who will have no concept of traditional family relationships? How about the fact that children who grow up in Gay households show confusion over gender roles and other things essential to a strong society?

““How do I want the children who have same-sex couples as parents to be treated?””

Ideally, they would have the kind of balanced, two-sided upbringing that children of traditional unions have, but that is never going to happen.

Look, I’m sure most Gay Parents love their kids – but two men simply CANNOT provide the same upbringing as a man and a woman. Are you honestly trying to tell me that, if you had been raised by two of your mothers or two of your fathers that nothing would be different?

Gays should NOT have children – do you honestly believe that two women can raise a young boy the same as a mother and a father? Of course not – he might not become a serial killer, and he might not be able to respond to a survey question “do you regret not having a father?” (you can’t miss what you’ve never had – but there is inevitably going to be something missing. There is a reason men and women are so different from each other – and a reason it takes one of each to create a baby.

And yet – there is no evidence that the children reared by same-sex couples, by lesbian and gay parents, are any less well-adjusted, happy, successful adults, than the children reared by mixed-sex couples.

And to prevent lesbians and gays having children, you would have to institute an unremitting program of forced sterilizations and forced abortions. Is that what you want? If not (and I’m going to assume it’s not!) how can you argue that children whom you believe have something “lacking” in their lives ought to be further legally discriminated against because of the “something lacking”?

I don’t even believe Gays should have kids – and besides, any kids that they do have are not going to be produced within the marriage. – they will require either a sperm donor, a surrogate mother, or another couple entirely to allow for adoption.

That’s true. So, are you in favor of denying marriage to mixed-sex couples who have children via sperm donor, surrogate mother, or adoption? After all, they too are not having children “within the marriage”. What reason do you have for feeling that children conceived via donor, born from a surrogate, or adopted by a couple, ought not to have married parents? Are these families not deserving of support?

Look, I’m sure most Gay Parents love their kids – but two men simply CANNOT provide the same upbringing as a man and a woman. Are you honestly trying to tell me that, if you had been raised by two of your mothers or two of your fathers that nothing would be different?

I have no idea what my upbringing would have been like if I’d had a different mother – or a different father. Nor do you, I would guess. What we do know is that there is no evidence that there is a difference.

But, in any case – granted that you believe there is a difference, and that difference is harmful to the children of same-sex couples, what justification can you give for arguing that those children ought to be legally discriminated against by being denied married parents?

“What we do know is that there is no evidence that there is a difference.”

Not to gender identity or sexual preference, no. But Children of Gay Parents have been reported to, in some studies, show less certainty over traditional gender roles – which again poses a threat to the maintenance of a strong traditional relationships that are essential to our national well-being.

But enough about the child issue – let me ask you a question: if you are going to allow Gay Marriage, where do you draw the line? What arguments do you have left against polygamous marriages? Group marriages? Sibling marriages?

But Children of Gay Parents have been reported to, in some studies, show less certainty over traditional gender roles – which again poses a threat to the maintenance of a strong traditional relationships that are essential to our national well-being.

But that’s a circular argument. Sorry, but it is. You’re presuming that same-sex relationships – where you don’t have “traditional” husband/wife roles (never mind that many mixed-sex couples don’t have such “traditional” roles either, these days) are bad: you are presuming this because children brought up by same-sex couples aren’t locked into believing that there’s a standard “husband” role and a standard “wife” role: and this is bad because….?

traditional gender roles – which again poses a threat to the maintenance of a strong traditional relationships that are essential to our national well-being.

How can it be essential to “our national wellbeing” to legislate that some children must be brought up outside marriage even though both their parents want to be married to each other? If the maintenance of “traditional relationships” is essential, do you advocate denying marriage to couples where the wife is the breadwinner and the husband is the homemaker? Or where both spouses are breadwinners, and share child care equally? Earlier, you appeared to be advocating denial of marriage to couples who have children via adoption, sperm donation, or surrogacy. You appear to feel that it’s best for families if marriage is a prize restricted exclusively to couples who are interfertile and all of whose children are the biological children of both couples. It appears, then, that either you want to discriminate against a large number of families by denying the parents marriage – or, if you don’t feel that denying marriage is discrimination, that you are arguing that marriage is unimportant to forming strong families.

But enough about the child issue – let me ask you a question: if you are going to allow Gay Marriage, where do you draw the line? What arguments do you have left against polygamous marriages? Group marriages? Sibling marriages?

Poly and group marriages would require major revisions to marriage legislation if they were to treat all partners in the marriage equally. Marriage legislation in the US is predicated on a marriage being two people, not three or more. I’m happy to discuss this at more length, but it is fairly obvious.

Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples involves no major change to any marriage legislation in the US, since throughout the US, both spouses have equal rights and obligations in marriage.

The basic legal argument against sibling marriage is that there is already a legal relationship between all the siblings in a family. If sibling marriage is allowed, this creates a second and potentially conflicting legal relationship, both with the other siblings and with other members of the family. (This applies, even more strongly, to a marriage between child and parent.) And, as with poly marriage, there is no issue that anyone is being actually denied marriage because they are not allowed to marry their brother or sister.

The positive argument is simple: same-sex couples have made a clear case for the freedom to marry being extended to them. They wish to marry: no significant change in marriage legislation is required – in Iowa, for example, it merely needed that single Supreme Court decision. There needs to be shown some positive reason why same-sex couples should be denied the freedom to marry, and no such positive reason has been found. Further, denial of marriage to same-sex couples is a clear case of active discrimination by sexual orientation, as this means lesbians and gay men cannot marry.

With poly marriage, the situation is different on three counts:

First, the vast majority of people advocating for poly marriage on religious grounds are not asking for equal marriage legislation – they do not wish the one man and his dozen wives to become equal partners in a 13-strong marriage. They want, in effect, to legalize gender discrimination – to give a man the right to choose and divorce his wives, but the woman only the right to refuse to accept a new wife. There is no strong movement, as there is among LGBT people, for equal marriage.

Second, creating equal polygamous marriage would require some major revision of marriage legislation, which, if given general application, could affect all marriages – which is not true, of course, of allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Third, there is no active discrimination involved against any group. Muslims and Mormons who believe that their God says they may have poly marriages are not banned from marriage – they are merely banned from making multiple legal marriages.

With sibling marriage, the point is even simpler: there is not even a minority movement demanding the freedom for siblings to marry. Until this question is raised seriously, by a group of people who wish to marry their sibling and feel they are being discriminated against by this denial, I see no reason to take this seriously. I’ve only ever seen it raised by anti-marriage activists arguing that “If you let same-sex couples marry what stops incestuous marriage from becoming legal?”

I might have to give you some front-page time…. this is getting a little long, and its going to get bumped…

“Marriage legislation in the US is predicated on a marriage being two people, not three or more.”

It was also predicated on involving only members of the opposite sex…go back and read Loving v. Virginia – the SCOTUS ruled that couples of different races should be allowed to marry – because marriage (and sex, which was, at that time reserved for marriage) were essential to human survival. You allow Gay Marriage, you remove that element, and you eliminate all real arguments against other alternative styles of the family. At least reserving marriage for one man and one woman has some basis in science and natural laws – only members of the opposite sex can reproduce. If you start allowing same-sex marriage, then it becomes simply about what is viewed as acceptable by society at any certain point in time.

Was. But that hasn’t been so since May 17, 2004. Indeed, given that the US would normally recognize legal marriages from other jurisdictions, if not for the doubtfully-Constitutional “DOMA” law, that hasn’t been so since April 2001. The predicate of marriage has changed, in the United States and elsewhere, that’s just a fact. (Besides the various states in the US, I think the current list of countries that recognise same-sex marriages is Belgium, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden.)

You can, I suppose, at a stretch, interpret the Loving v. Virginia decision to be a decision requiring a couple to be interfertile before they can be allowed to marry. But it is quite a stretch, and requires you to ignore the bolded passages (below):

“These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

There is no requirement in US law that a couple must be capable of procreation before they can be allowed to marry. Therefore, given the principle established in Loving vs. Virginia that the freedom of choice in marriage resides with the individual, that marriage is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness, there is no justification in denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry merely because they cannot conceive children who will be equally the biological children of them both.

If you start allowing same-sex marriage, then it becomes simply about what is viewed as acceptable by society at any certain point in time.

Well, it always was. Marriage has always been about what is acceptable by society. It used to be acceptable for adult men to marry 12-year-old girls. It used to be acceptable for husbands to rape wives – it was considered unacceptable for a woman to have the legal right to refuse her husband sexually. It used to be acceptable for married women to lose all legal rights to sign contracts in their own name, keep whatever money they earned, control whatever property they inherited. It used to be acceptable for husbands to beat their wives, and criminal for anyone to interfere with this “domestic discipline”. None of these things are considered acceptable in marriage any more, and I’m sure you’ll agree that’s a good thing. It used to be considered acceptable to deny black people the right to marry legally. It used to be considered acceptable to deny a black person the right to marry a white person legally. It used to be considered acceptable to deny lesbians and gays the freedom to marry.

What is acceptable changes. Marriage changes too. “Traditional” in marriage, depending how far back you go, can subsume a lot of very ugly things: traditional marriage, in the US, would not have allowed black people to marry, for centuries.

Your argument that marriage is only for interfertile couples is also not considered acceptable – do you seriously think that women past the climacteric would think they ought to be legally barred from marriage because they can no longer conceive children? Or that a man who gets a vasectomy, or has a low sperm count, or a woman who gets a tubal ligation, or who’s had ovarian cancer or fallopian pregnancies, ought to be legally barred from marriage? Fertility, or lack of it, isn’t even considered a separate cause for divorce – obviously, a couple where one wants children and the other doesn’t or can’t may divorce, as they may over any other difference that makes the marriage break down. But in law, it’s not by itself a sufficient cause for divorce: nor may the State require fertility testing before permitting a couple to marry. So this assertion just doesn’t hold.

Right, so now that the Government no longer offers a special place to the kind of traditional unions that we need to keep out country strong – what is your plan to promote the traditional family structure and values to America’s children?

You might not like the traditional family, you might think that conservative mother/father unions are outdated – but we need those kind of unions to keep America strong. The high divorce rate, fewer marriages, and yes, the libertarian-minded “do what makes you happy” train of thought are all doing serious damage to our social fabric.

So, now that we can no longer send the message that we value traditional families by giving preferential treatment to the kinds of unions that actually provide (in the vast majority of cases) a return benefit to society, how do we send the message?

Right, so now that the Government no longer offers a special place to the kind of traditional unions that we need to keep out country strong – what is your plan to promote the traditional family structure and values to America’s children?

I think if you answer the following questions, you will find that “what is your plan?” answers itself:

Why do you feel that “America’s children” excludes lesbians and gays? Do you really feel that only heterosexuals are really American, and only heterosexuals can make the US a strong country? If so, what’s your reasoning? Why should US citizenship have the added value of “sexual orientation” added to it, when traditionally, being an American is something any child born in the United States, or to American parents, is able to claim?

You see, if you take away the presumption that lesbian and gay children born in the US aren’t “America’s children”, plainly, in order to promote strong families to America’s children, the government must make a special place for all marriages and all families – not just those based on mixed-sex couples.

You might not like the traditional family, you might think that conservative mother/father unions are outdated – but we need those kind of unions to keep America strong.

Why? Why will it weaken America to have same-sex couples able to marry?

The high divorce rate, fewer marriages, and yes, the libertarian-minded “do what makes you happy” train of thought are all doing serious damage to our social fabric.

So when couples are denied marriage by the government, and their children forced by legislation to grow up with unmarried parents, this somehow repairs the social fabric?

Incidentally, high divorce rates tend to be strongly associated with conservative states, not liberal states – primarily, it appears, because if the culture mandates “No sex till marriage”, people will tend to get married based purely on “want to have sex!” rather than on a maturely-considered “I’ve found the one person I know I want to spend the rest of my life with

So, now that we can no longer send the message that we value traditional families by giving preferential treatment to the kinds of unions that actually provide (in the vast majority of cases) a return benefit to society, how do we send the message?

But there’s no change to the preferential treatment granted to mixed-sex marriages. None at all. It’s only that the same preferential treatment is now granted to same-sex marriages. So where’s your problem? Do you really feel that mixed-sex couples will no longer feel their marriage is valued by the state just because same-sex couples can also marry?

I’ve heard it said that an American is a person who believes in certain principles which constitute a kind of civic religion. Unlike many countries, we are all different races, ethnicities, creeds and ideologies, living fairly harmoniously together because but we all subscribe to the same basic truths: That all men and women are created equal, and must receive equal protection under the Law. That we are endowed at birth with certain inalienable rights, including but not limited to those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. That the will of the majority must prevail, but that the rights of the minority must always be respected. That everyone is subject equally to the rule of Law, and that no one is above the Law. That the full faith and credit of the Federal government, and that of every individual State government and their legal documents and court rulings are accepted and respected in every State of the Union. That there shall be no establishment of any religion as official or pre-eminent by the State, and that religions should not be interfered with by the government nor interfere in the government. Most of all, that the people should be secure in their persons and in their homes, free to go about their business without interference by the State, in order to pursue their own lives, liberties and happiness.

That’s what it says, folks: Happiness. Not “property,” or “propriety'” not “order” or “orthodoxy;” not “obedience” or “conformity:” Happiness. Read it. That’s what it says, our Declaration. It says we have the right to Happiness.